To:P. N. LEPESHINSKY[1]

To Comrade Olin, who signed as secretary of theGeneva groupof the R.S.D.L.P. organisation abroad

Decisionof the C.C. representative abroad, which mustbe read out in fullat the next meeting of the group (i.e., today, August 29, if this decision arrives during the meeting).[2]

Written:Written August 29, 1905, in Geneva (local mail)Published:First published in 1931.

      Printed from the original.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,1974,

      Moscow,Volume 34,

      pages330-332.Translated:Clemens DuttTranscription\Markup:D. MorosPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      (2005).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

Today,August 29, 1905, at 8 p.m., copies of the letter from the Geneva group to
the forwarding office and of the reply of the latter to the former reached the
C.C. representative abroad.

Inconnection with these documents, the representative abroad of the C.C. of the
R.S.D.L.P. points out to the Geneva group that it has displayed lack of
understanding of Party discipline and has violated the Party Rules. The
forwarders are agents of the Central Committee. Any dissatisfaction with
C.C. agents is a matter for examination primarily by the Central Committee
itself. According to the Rules, the C.C. deals with all conflicts arising within
the Party, and particularly so in the case of conflicts between members of the
Party’s various organisations and C.C. agents. Therefore, by inviting
C.C. agents to a meeting of the group, the latter took a step that was, formally
speaking, incorrect in general and tactless in particular.

If,however, this invitation was not supposed to be a formal act, then it should
not have been made in writing and officially.

The“personal behaviour” of “officers” is either merely
personal (unconnected with and independent of the office they hold), in which
case its investigation by the group amounts tosquabbling; or else, the
personal behaviourhas to do with the office, in which case every Party member, who is dissatisfied
with this behaviour, and who insists on aformal, officialinvestigation, isobligedfirst and fore most to address himself
formally to the C.C. The Geneva group of the R.S.D.L.P., by allowing questions
concerning dissatisfaction with C.C. agents to “come up” before the group as a
matter offormalexamination prior to this beingformallyreported to the C.C., has thereby again showed failure to understand the
discipline and Rules of the Party.

Thedifference I have just mentioned betweensquabblingandcriticism of an officer(criticism which isobligatoryfor
every Party member, and which should be made in an open way and addressed
directly to the central institutions or the Congress, and not underhand,
private, parochial criticism), this difference is evidently not clearly grasped
by the group.

TheC.C. representative abroad therefore considers it his duty to warn
all young comrades of the group. In the “colonial” conditions of
life abroad people can always be found who are liable to contract the disease of
squabbling, gossip and tittle-tattle, people who very badly fulfil the functions
which the C.C. or the Congress entrusts to them, but who are eager to gossip
about the unsatisfactory fulfilment of other functions by other Party
members. Some comrades, through inexperience, curiosity or spinelessness, may
often listen seriously to these people. Such people, however, should not be
listened to, but should be sharply called to order andnot allowedto
raise formal questions concerning the “personal behaviour of
officers”untilthese questions have been formally submitted for
consideration to the appropriate Party institutions and examined anddecided
by them.

Partymembers abroad easily succumb to the disease I have indicated, but all
young comrades with healthy nerves should keep a strict eye on themselves and
others, for theonlyway of combating this disease is to see to it that
any inclination towards squabbling and tittle-tattle isimmediately and
relentlessly nipped in the bud.

Thatis why the C.C. representative abroad has decided:

I.Torequestthe Geneva group towithdrawits letter of
August 28 to the forwarding office.

Thiswould be the best and speediest way of ending a bad business which, by the
very force of events, threatens to lead to the most unpleasant quarrels and
rifts.

Thegroup is not obliged, of course, to meet therequestwhich I am
makingin the name of the C.C. I venture to make thisrequestbecause I am dealing withcomrades, with whom so far I have, never had
any formal conflict.

II.Should the group reject my request then point I of
the decision falls away. In that case, I propose that the group:

1.)Informme whether it intends to comply with the Party Rules as explained
  above, i.e., to comply with thedecision made by me in the name
  of the C.C. (an appeal against this decision can be made (a) at a full
  meeting of the C.C. or (b) at a Congress, but it is binding until an nulled by
  a higher body).

2)Sendme, in accordance with Clause 11 of the Party
Rules, all information concerning the make-up of the group and “all its
activities” (votings, etc.) in connection with the present unfortunate
business.

N.Lenin,the Representative Abroadof the C.C. of the R.S.D.L.P.

[1]Lepeshinsky,Panteleimon Nikolayevich(1868–1944)—a prominent
member of the Communist Party. Joined the Social-Democratic movement in the
early nineties. In 1900 he took an active part in organising the
promulgation ofIskra. In 1903 he emigrated to Switzerland; took
part in preparing the Third Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. During the
revolution of 1905-07 carried on revolutionary work in Ekaterinoslav and
St. Petersburg.

[2]Thisletter of Lenin’s (Decisionof the C. C. representative
abroad) was written in connection with the conflict that had arisen between
various members of the Bolshevik Geneva group.